I think change absolutely has to come from governments and thus diplomats. Are corporations going to cooperate at a global scale to fix this with no regard for short term profits? Corporations like Exxon knew about climate change 40 years ago. Personally I think we should be litigating against a corporation that would hide something of global importance like that.
Where is the money to research these technical solutions going to come from? The article you linked showed that there were improvements among the signatories even though without the fall of the USSR it would have been 2.7% vs. 4.7%. Still it was something vs. just saying "this problem is too big to solve, let's hope some smart scientist finds a fix before we all die". Had China and the US been adhering to the Kyoto protocol undoubtedly the impact would have been much greater.
That's rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. And acting as if that's an important thing to spend political capital on is precisely "posturing and pandering."
What should they spend political capital on? Seems like this section is also going to help develop technological solutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Ensuring_finan...
How could we fix the climate more effectively? Elect a world dictator / threaten other countries with nuclear annihilation unless they cut their emmissions.
Would we rather live in that world?
One way to ensure that doesn't happen is to put a tax on carbon emissions. Governments then become dependent on fossil fuel usage for revenue and will enact policies that ensure that revenue stream never gets cut off.
The quest for things, the newest things, the newest non-upgradable things, is leading us into disaster. We can't keep throwing away phones after two years or purchasing new laptops instead of fixing what we have. We don't have the raw materials to replace the millions of gas cars on the roads with electric/hybrids.
Things like rail, consuming less, paying more for longer lasting devices, smaller factories that produce fewer yet higher quality goods, etc. etc. will fix the underlying problems. Things like CO2 emissions, the massive plastic patches in the oceans, heavy metal in our water supplies, toxic waste--these are all symptoms and not the root problem itself.
It requires a massive change in thinking, advertising and economies. For example, Intel should be happy when it has a massive growth reduction because it means they created something that lasts a long time, is still valuable and is non-disposable. Companies need to be rewarded for things that simply last longer or can be upgraded, recycled or refurbished. The fundamental role of money and its representation of resources has to change. Our values about what is valuable needs to change.
Climate change is just a runny nose out there that people try to plug up with pseudoephedrine when the real problem is the virus that's killing your body.
What if that were extended based on toxicity? Enough so that throwing out year old electronics started to get expensive enough that consumers started valuing longevity again?
I don't think you'll get US buy-in for any sort of manufacturer-targeted externalities tax. See carbon tax debate. But, if you tax the consumer (either on the front or back end), demonstrate that the tax revenue is 100% funding something they believe in (e.g. toxic electronic waste fee -> parks, libraries, and after-school programs) then you might have a shot.
Part of the problem is that the 60s-00s were in Moore's Law, so there was a finite performance incentive to upgrade devices frequently. I'm hopeful as that changes, build quality becomes a key distinguisher.
Climate change is a shibboleth and people largely appear to recognize it as such. For example, in Ware County, GA (to pick somewhere at random), 70% of folks voted for Trump but 2/3 answered "yes" to "global warming is happening."
> I honestly think climate change is the most important issue in the world right now, and I would love to know what we can do to get you on our side.
Supporting diplomatic efforts to combat climate change are virtue signaling. I'm an environmentalist and I agree that climate change is probably an impending disaster. But diplomats aren't going to fix it. The Kyoto protocol, for example, accomplished almost nothing: http://www.circularecology.com/news/the-kyoto-protocol-clima.... The only thing that can save us (if we can be saved) is technological breakthrough, and the prospects of that happening won't change based on U.S. participation in international climate change protocols.